quote:

No, animals do not have sex for pleasure. Believe me, I've asked my friend who breeds rats, my friend whose brother breeds cats, the friends of the family who are dog breeders, a zookeeper and a vet.

quote:

Originally posted by CelticNewAger:

quote:

Yes, that is true. However, the purpose of different sexes is to reproduce. Make note, we are the only species, at least known of, that has sex as a display of affection. Every other species on earth, at least to our knowledge, has sex for the sole purpose of reproducing, and that what different genders are for.

Nope. Many animals have sex for pleasure. Even gay sex.

quote:

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

quote:

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]

It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior

Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]

Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]

Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]

Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.

quote:

and you can't throw the bible back into my face because marriage isn't the same as it was before. marriage has evolved and grown w/ society. nowadays we're lucky if a marriage lasts for 5 years (not an actual statistic). if we were to look back twenty years or so, marriage and family are completely different.....

quote:

Yes, that is true. However, the purpose of different sexes is to reproduce. Make note, we are the only species, at least known of, that has sex as a display of affection. Every other species on earth, at least to our knowledge, has sex for the sole purpose of reproducing, and that what different genders are for.

quote:

But see, that's the attitude that people take. They refuse to look at the other side of the issue, because they know that it is unfair, but they don't want to admit it. It's how the human mind works, whether we want to admit it or not.

quote:

You're joking, right?

quote:

Yeah, and do you remember when all the "prophets" predicted the world will end in 2000?

quote:

Great, another homosexuality thread. But I don't see any on the trannies. Nooo, I guess we're not important enough for people to be arguing about whether or not transsexualism and gender dysphoria are a sin?

quote:

Nooo, I guess we're not important enough for people to be arguing about whether or not transsexualism and gender dysphoria are a sin?

quote:

Make note, we are the only species, at least known of, that has sex as a display of affection.

quote:

Flawed argument. You are suggesting then that sex should be only for reproduction, and let me inform you, gay or straight, people have sex for pleasure a lot more than for reproduction.

quote:

If homosexual couples could reproduce, there wouldn't be different genders